Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	catholic_n	church_n	communion_n	6,739	5	9.8919	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36253	Separation of churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical from such principles as are least controverted and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism ... by Henry Dodwell ...	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1679 (1679)	Wing D1818; ESTC R13106	571,393	694

one with another And it is to be remembred that in these matters of Communion the Divine ratification is the only thing considerable This is the true case of our Non-Conforming Brethren And this being supposed to be their case and withal that the things which I have endeavoured to prove in this Discourse are true I do not see how it is possible for them to prove that when they are out of the Communion of the Church of England they are in Communion with any other particular Church in the World that may give them any plausible pretence of continuing in the Communion of the Catholick Church Though other absolute Churches independent on the Church of England might receive them to their Communion who are separated from the Communion of our Church and the Sacraments administred to such Persons were valid Sacraments yet this can afford no comfort to our present Non-Conformists because they cannot plead any countenance from any such Churches And this were sufficient for my present design to prove that they are actually out of the Communion of the visible Catholick Church § XIX BUT because this is a thing which our Independent Brethren do usually profess themselves not to understand how any can communicate with the whole Catholick Church or consequently be excluded from Catholick Communion and because it must be a much more affecting consideration to them to cut them off from all hopes of re●●e● on pretence of any claim to a Vnion with the Catholick Church if it may be proved that their separation from their own particular Church must not only de facto cut them off from all communion with other Churches but de jure ought to do so and therefore that all that other Churches can do for them cannot restore them to that Catholick Vnity which they must have lost by their separation from any one particular Church whilest it remains Catholick that is whilest it mainteins the terms of Catholick correspondence Therefore 5. I proceed further to shew that such Separatists cannot maintein their title to Catholick Vnity by being received into any other Churches though otherwise absolute and unaccountable to the Church from whence they are separated By Catholick Vnity I do not here mean as our Independent Brethren do a Vnity of meeting ordinarily in the same Assemblies That I confess unpracticable in the Catholick Church But as the absent Members of particular Churches do not by every particular absence lose the right of Vnion with their particular Churches because as long as they submit to the conditions of Communion they have a right to be received to Communion as often as they shall be pleased to come to it and are accordingly properly said to be united to it and to be in actual Communion with it even when they do not actually communicate with it at all so is the case in reference to Catholick Communion Every Person by his Baptism in any particular Church is admitted a Member of the Catholick Church not of the Elect alone nay not at all according to those who say that they who fall away totally and finally when they are adult could never have been Elect whiles they were Infants but of the visible Church also And that plainly appears hence that all agree that if he have occasion to travel into forein Churches he has a right to be received to the external visible Priviledges of baptized Persons among them only on a certificate of the Baptism received at home without reiterating it in the several Churches where he desires to be admitted to Communion Only the reason of our Brethrens misapprehensions seems to be this that they seem to conceive his right to the particular Church where he is baptized to result from his Vnion with the Catholick Church whereas indeed his right to communion with the whole Catholick Church results rather from that actual visible Communion in which Baptism does visibly invest him with his particular Church as all other Churches are obliged to maintein a correspondence with this particular Church and therefore to ratifie the Sacraments therein administred as validly administred § XX THIS is an observation of very considerable influence upon my present design If Baptism did indeed primarily admit a Person into the Catholick Church and secondarily into the particular Church in which the Baptism was received as a part of the Catholick Church then our Adversaries would reason very consequently They might then very reasonably pretend that the Vnion here made were an invisible Vnion for so that must needs be which can be supposed to be made with the whole Catholick Church antecedently to any visible Vnion with any particular Church Then they might reasonably plead a Vnion with the Catholick Church though out of all visible Vnion with any particular Church because their Vnion with the Catholick Church would be antecedent and therefore Independent on their Vnion with any particular Church Then they might justly question the right of particular Churches to deprive them of their Vnion with the Catholick when they could not think themselves in a worse condition upon their separation from their particular Church than they were in antecedently to their Vnion with it but then they thought themselves united to the Catholick Church They might justly continue their claim of right to Vnion even with that particular Church from which they were separated on the same Principles of their continuing still united to the Catholick Church and the right to Communion even with that particular as well as other Churches being grounded on their persevering Vnion with the Catholick Church And this right to Communion would be as properly an actual Communion with that Church it self as absenters and those who forbear the Sacrament are notwithstanding said to be in actual Communion with it Which if it should prove true it will then be as impossible for particular Churches to deprive any Member so much as of their own Communion as it is impossible to deprive them of their invisible Vnion with the Catholick Church from which this right to Communion with particular Churches is conceived to follow by so necessary a consequence But methinks the destructiveness of these consequences to any Discipline whatsoever should make all Patrons of Discipline wary of the Principles from whence they do so inevitably follow § XXI BUT if on the contrary the right of Catholick Communion be grounded as to particular Persons on the right they enjoy to the Communion of the particular Churches where they live and the right those particular Churches have as parts of the Catholick Church to have their Sacraments acknowledged and their Members received in all other Churches whom they take for Catholick then that which deprives them of the Communion of their own Churches must by consequence deprive them of the right of being Members of the Catholick Church to which they have no other title than what they can derive from their being Members of their own particular Churches to which they are

§ I Separation of Churches FROM EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT As practised by the present Non-Conformists PROVED SCHISMATICAL From such Principles as are least controverted and do withal most popularly explain The Sinfulness and Mischief OF SCHISM In this Treatise The Sin against the Holy Ghost the Sin unto Death and other difficult Scriptures are occasionally discoursed of and some useful Rules are given for EXPLICATION of SCRIPTVRE By HENRY DODWELL M.A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity-College near Dublin in Ireland 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ign. Ep. ad Ephes. p. 20. Edit Voss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Ep. ad Corinth §. 30. LONDON Printed for Benjamin Tooke at the Ship in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXIX THE PREFACE THE interests of those many parties which at present keep up the Divisions of Christendom are so highly concerned in the consequences of my present undertaking And the generality of men are so visibly partial in disputes wherein interest is concerned so much more inclinable to resent the severity of a conclusion that charges them with dangerous mistakes than to think how much indeed it is their interest rather to beware of errors that may prove dangerous than to stand out in the defence of what they have once undertaken to defend and how much it is therefore their interest to examine the premises with all possible accurateness and candor from whence such conclusions are deduced as that I cannot but expect some indications of the resentment of concerned Persons though I have endeavoured that the way of management might be as unoffensive as was possible Though my design be Peace yet that it self is enough to alarm the Spirits of many in the contentious Age we live in who when they are spoken to of peace will make them ready to battle And therefore I cannot but think my self concerned to foresee and prevent such prejudices as may hinder such who most need the informations given in the present Work either from reading them or from benefiting by them § II I MUST therefore warn my Reader in the first place that when he finds the Title promise him a Discourse concerning SCHISM he do not understand it in the same sense as it has been considered in so many modern discourses upon that Subject between us and the Romanists SCHISM not here considered as between Churches but as between particular Members and their own Churches I do not here consider the question of Schism between Churches but between Subjects separating from particular Churches and the Churches from which they separate This is all for which my present design does concern me and if my reasons prove that Subjects separating from their own particular Churches for unsinful Impositions are Schismaticks I shall perform what I intended But the same reasons will not prove a Church Schismatical for refusing impositions though unsinful from another Church For I suppose all Churches originally equal and that they have since submitted to prudential compacts which though they may oblige them as long as the reason of those compacts last and as far as the equity of those compacts may hold as to the true design of those that made them and as far as those compacts have meddled only with the alienable rights of particular Churches yet where any of these conditions fail there the particular Churches are at liberty to resume their antient rights And I suppose the power of judging when these condititions fail to be an unalienable right of particular Churches and not only to judg with the judgment of private discretion but such a judgment as may be an authentick measure of her own practice § III I DO not undertake to prove that these things are so in this discourse I only mention them that the Reader may understand on how different Principles these two questions are to be stated The Romanists can make no advantage of the Principles of this discourse to charge our Church with SCHISM and therefore how far it is from following that if the Non-Conformists be Schismaticks for separating from the Church of England therefore the Church of England must be Schismatical for refusing Communion with the Church of Rome and how far the reasons which I have here used for proving the Non-Conformists Schismatical are from being applicable to such a case of the Church of England I do not now insist upon those reasons which might have been produced to prove that the impositions of the Church of Rome are not unsinful no nor innocent of so high a degree of sin as might be greater than that of a particular Church's refusing correspondence with another The things which I have suggested plainly shew that the case will prove extremely different though we consider them barely as impositions not as sinful impositions And to let our Romish Adversaries know that I have already foreseen the use they would be likely to make of a discourse of this nature and how wary I have therefore been of using any reasons that might prove more than I intended or might hinder us from Principles sufficient for our own defence against them I shall desire them to consult my two short Discourses published with a design to prepare the way for this Work There they will find such principles of defence of our Church against them which will not clash with any thing said here which I verily believe true and which being supposed true I also conceive very sufficient to vindicate our Church from their imputation of SCHISM for our not communicating with them And I know not what they can desire more who will desire no more than what is equal § IV BUT as to the main mischief of SCHISM insisted on in this discourse the Nullity of Orders and Sacraments in the Persons guilty of separation and the consequent Sacriledg of those who shall presume in such a case to administer the Sacraments without sufficient Authority That they cannot charge us with even by their own Principles purely on the account of the separation They cannot deny but that Bishops even according to the design and practice of their own Church when we began our Reformation had all that power given them by them who made them Bishops which was requisite not only for mainteining a Church at present but also for mainteining a Succession in it through all succeeding generations They had the power not only of making other Priests who might administer the Sacraments during their own lives but also of making other Bishops who might convey this power to others Whoever they were that nominated the Persons whether the People or the Clergy or the Prince or the Pope yet still they were the Bishops who performed the office of Consecration which was that which was then thought immediately to confer the power It was then also believed that the Orders given and the Sacraments administred out of the Church by Persons duly Authorized by such as had power to authorize them were valid as to the substance of the things though